Talk:En passant

Anecdote

Supposedly, some chess master was giving a simultaneous exhibition when one his opponents ordered a glass of wine, but wasn't at his board when it was delivered. The master seized the glass, drank it down, and moved on to the next board, explaining "My opponent left a glass of wine en prise, so I took it en passant."

I think I read that in George Koltanowski's column many years ago. Perhaps someone can pin it down. WHPratt (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked: it's already in the article on J. H. Blackburne. Might be fun to repeat it here. WHPratt (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it can go hwere, but it needs a reference (otherwise it could be apocryphal) . Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's apocryphal! Not suggested as history, but rather as popular culture, putting two evocative chess terms to good use. The version with the simul makes more sense, as in those the master player truly plays en passant. WHPratt (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable obscurity?

The En passant rule seems to be notable due to the fact that few people know about it - it's one of the least-known rules of chess, at least to the general public. Anyone who knows anything at all about chess probably knows all of the basic moves of the pieces (up to and including castling, but not usually beyond that), but only people who know the game really well seem to be familiar with En passant. It actually seems like it's so well known for being not well known that the phrase "En passant" is often used to describe obscure and not-widely-known rules in other games and even in sports. I only have common knowledge to back this up though - can anyone find legitimate sources about other such uses in order to add a statement to that effect in the article? Lurlock (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

En passant is one of the basic rules of chess. It is in all (modern) lists of the rules. My daughter knew it when she was in the first grade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's in all of the standard rulebooks. This is not disputed. But it is one of the lesser-known rules, and very rarely put into practice, given that it can only be used under very specific circumstances, and only when the other player instigates it. (Most experienced chess players would probably not put themselves into a situation where their opponent could make use of the rule.) I've heard the term used in many non-chess contexts to refer to similarly under-used rules. Lurlock (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have statistics at hand, but en passant isn't exactly rare. It isn't a "lesser-known rule", except perhaps among some novices. If a player doesn't know the rule, it is because they didn't read all of the list, since it is on every list of rules. It is part of the move of the pawn. I don't understand what you say about the opponent "instigating" the rule, since many applications of a capture are similarly the result of the opponent's move. I don't agree with your statement that most experienced players would not put themselves in such a position. I haven't heard the term used as you say. The term is even used in bridge (in a different context of course): Coup en passant. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand both of your points here. It IS a lesser known rule, I can attest to that having played many players to whom I've had to explain the rule growing up. Most people learn chess from a friend or family member, not by reading a rule book and en passant is not passed along a very high percentage of the time. Just look at many chess websites where serious players play. If you look at their FAQ section they'll often have a special section singling out and explaining en passant because so many people don't understand what's going on when their opponent plays e.p. against them. They think it's a glitch or a bug. However, I don't really think it's an article's place to comment on itself on the rarity of the knowledge it's giving. It should give the knowledge and not attempt to make the reader feel like what they're reading is common or uncommon knowledge. Afterall you probably won't see the sections explaining the most commonly known rules stating that they are the most commonly known rules. Secondly, saying that an experienced player wouldn't allow an e.p. position to occur is rubbish. Capturing en passant may result in a good, bad, or even position therefor it is a position that any strength of player could be happy to allow, depending on the situation. -Matt S. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a basic move, it's a move only pawns can do, only to other pawns, only in very specific circumstances. It isn't something basic players will often encounter due to a tendency to push all pawns up. Ranze (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of all possible En Passant moves

Editors let me know if you think this might have a place on this page. It's a list of all possible combinations of moves where an en passant capture can occur, starting with black capturing white en passant and then white capturing black.

• A white pawn from a2 to a4 followed by a black pawn from b4 to a3
• A white pawn from b2 to b4 followed by a black pawn from a4 or c4 to b3
• A white pawn from c2 to c4 followed by a black pawn from b4 or d4 to c3
• A white pawn from d2 to d4 followed by a black pawn from c4 or e4 to d3
• A white pawn from e2 to e4 followed by a black pawn from d4 or f4 to e3
• A white pawn from f2 to f4 followed by a black pawn from e4 or g4 to f3
• A white pawn from g2 to g4 followed by a black pawn from f4 or h4 to g3
• A white pawn from h2 to h4 followed by a black pawn from g4 to h3

• A black pawn from a7 to a5 followed by a white pawn from b5 to a6
• A black pawn from b7 to b5 followed by a white pawn from a5 or c5 to b6
• A black pawn from c7 to c5 followed by a white pawn from b5 or d5 to c6
• A black pawn from d7 to d5 followed by a white pawn from c5 or e5 to d6
• A black pawn from e7 to e5 followed by a white pawn from d5 or f5 to e6
• A black pawn from f7 to f5 followed by a white pawn from e5 or g5 to f6
• A black pawn from g7 to g5 followed by a white pawn from f5 or h5 to g6
• A black pawn from h7 to h5 followed by a white pawn from g5 to h6

I'm thinking it might be too much "just a list" without enough real context, however I could see how a beginner trying to find out exactly when/if en passant is legal would want to look at this list and just make sure it's there. Or perhaps to settle a debate. Maybe it can be converted to a grid? -Matt S. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I agree with your statement that it is "too much just a list". A beginner would not be really helped by that list because he would have difficulties with the notation. SyG (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivial information and would imagine you could not reference it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that such a table (at the bottom of the article) could be worthwhile. An encyclopedia ought to be, well, encyclopedic. If something can be covered completely in a list of 16 items, who not do it? (I would add a column showing on what square the capturing pawn ends up.) If you were playing a game and made such a capture, only to have the opponent say "You can't do that!" wouldn't it be easier to show him or her the table and say, "There! Line 11. It's legal. Your move." As it is now, you'd have to tell your opponent to study this article for half an hour, and he probably still wouldn't believe you. WHPratt (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a table should be added. The description of the move gives the same information much more concisely (and intuitively). It is better to have a description of the move of a queen than list every possible queen move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen any other source list all the possible en passant captures, which strongly suggests to me that most people don't think that such a list is useful. My personal opinion is that it's pointless. It's easier to understand the rule and the idea behind it than memorize all the individual possibilities. Quale (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, exactly where did I suggest removing the definition and replacing it with the table? Or sugggest that said table should be memorized rather than learning the definition? Do I sense a straw man here?

You can figure out your income tax, given your income and the rate, with some math, but they put it in a table so that you won't have to.

If it's all really so concise and intuitive, why are there so many questions (see above) as to which e.p. captures are legal? I merely suggested that if a dispute arose, it could be useful to have the specific move validated in black and white. Yes, you can't find this anywhere else. Good chess players won't be consulting this, yet we shouldn't help beginners at the cost of a few square inches of text? This is what reference books (and sites) are for. WHPratt (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the questions seem to be about whether pieces other than the pawn can do it and about it only being available at the first opportunity. These are addressed in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion reminded me of when I learned chess (from a book). A description (definition), and example, guided my understanding perfectly. (A table of possible e.p.'s would have been, I'm sure, confusing and intimidating. So I'm of the view that a table is interesting, but totally counter-productive as far as education, especially for beginners.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My first chess set had a little booklet - it must have been in there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"the capture is optional"

Under the rules section it states, "the capture is optional, but if elected must be done immediately (cannot be done on a later turn)"

This leads me to believe that you may make the (diagonal) move without capturing the enemy piece (ie. the enemy pawn remains in play and your pawn has moved "behind" it). Is this the case?

If it is not the case, aren't all captures "optional" in a non-checkmate situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.133.48 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That is worded a little ambiguously. Making the move (which is a capture) is optional, like any other move. You cannot simply move diagonally without capturing the pawn. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unusual problem

At En_passant#Unusual_examples the first image notes "Position after 12...f7–f5" which makes sense since you can see the black pawn moved forward 2 spaces.

What I don't follow is move 13: "h5+ Kh6"

I'm new to algebraic notation here, but "after 12" (when 13 would begin) there is no piece on h5. Is it meant to describe that the pawn at h4 moves into that position to check the king at h6?

I don't understand the notation though, because the white queen could also move to h5 to check the king. How does this notation specify the use of the pawn and not the queen? Ranze (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 13. h5+ indicates a pawn move. This is all explained at algebraic notation (chess). Sasata (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Real life examples?

I would like to see some examples in which an en passant capture has been used by real players in match or tournament conditions. Also how prevalent it is, i.e. in what percentage of games one might expect to see the rule invoked. Intuitively I imagine it is quite rare, but I'm not certain of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Underpromotion is rare, e.p. is commonplace. The # of GM games containing w/ be sky high (what criteria would you use to pick one? maybe a Carlsen game would be timely!?), & I'm guessing no one has ever tried to compile a % stat. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ChessBase was a way to look for certain things, but not e.p. - at least not in CB9, which is two versions old. But it would be good to have an example by a famous player done early in the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe it isn't important to have examples from games. It is only a rule about moves - it isn't a tactic. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. But then, there's a Notable examples sec in Castling. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The "unusual examples" in this article has an example from a game. It wouldn't hurt to put another example from a game in. Based on my games and those of my daughter, I estimate that about 1-2% of games have e.p. in them. But that is an estimate based on a small number of non-repesentative games. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added another example from a game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re "Notation"

It now reads "In either algebraic or descriptive chess notation, en passant captures are sometimes denoted by "e.p." or similar, but such notation is not required. In algebraic notation, the move is written as if the captured pawn advanced only one square, for example, bxa3 (or bxa3e.p.) in this example."

I'd suggest adding a word so that it reads "... the capturing move is written as if ... ." I wouldn't want the reader to get the idea that the half-move that made the capture possible is recorded as a one-step pawn advance, e.g. that "a4" gets retroactively recorded as "a3" if an e.p. capture immediately follows. I found the passage ambiguous upon first reading. WHPratt (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, I've added one word. WHPratt (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

re 1902 composition by Sommerfeldt

"Simultaneously pinned and unpinned" sounds awkward to me. What about "pinned with respect to capturing, but not pinned with respect to moving"? 108.20.114.62 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)